Friday, March 18, 2005

Here in Michigan, researchers are looking at "how certain kinds of nanoparticles damage cell membranes — enough to cause cell death in some cases — and how the damage can be prevented." The answer is you don't just pump the stuff blindly into the body. You engineer them, or make the little beasts do what you want them to do. One researcher says, "Not only does engineering make them less harmful, but it also makes them better at what we want them to do. You don't lose anything; it's all a gain."

This is another example of the kinds of "mixed" nanotech messages being
presented to the public. Like any new science, there will be a
"breakthrough of the week" that may or may not conform to a particular
political agenda. One day dendrimers can cure cancer, the next day
they'll kill you and the next day they'll save your life again.

The
answer, of course, is this is why it's called nano "technology," and
not just nanoscale stuff. Size, alone, does not necessarily matter. In
fact, size alone could be more dangerous -- just as anti-nanotech
groups like the ETC Group have claimed. However, when you add the
"technology," when you engineer them for a specific function, that's
when you really see the benefit. This is especially true in nanobiotech.

In many cases, the
mainstream media have picked up on studies in which researchers pump rats' lungs or
fish's brains full of dumb nanomaterials, and bad things
begin to happen. Receiving less attention are the followups in which
these nanomaterials, when engineered for a specific purpose, could possibly not only fail to kill the poor rodents or other creatures, but actually help them get better and learn to play the piano.